Andy Lyons/GettyThe Nets worked out a number of potential draft picks over the past week, including Rahway native Earl Clark (5).

Rod Thorn checked in from Chi Thursday to talk about a matter unrelated to Nets business, and he said all was well. They had the skills workout Thursday morning, and the rest of his time has been spent at a Competition Committee meeting (which is precisely what we wanted to talk about) and interviewing prospective draftees.

"Starting yesterday (Weds.) we interviewed four players. Today we interviewed five, with four more to go. And tomorrow we have five," The Boss said. "That's never been done before -- a 30-minute interview with all these people in 2 1/2 days."

And that's long enough to determine whether you want to invest a guaranteed $5,040,000 in a kid you never met for the next two years?

"Well, it's probably not long enough, but you can get a feel for a guy," he said. "What kind of guy he is, what kind of brain he has, how he handles himself, that type of thing."

This was news to us: They're still doing the psychological tests, but they haven't gotten around to it yet. "We'll probably do it when we have our little thing," Thorn said, referring to the big workout Jamboree on June 12-14.

There will be more workouts the following week (16-17-18) that will deliver players of greater interest.

* * *

Anyway, we wanted to talk about what the Comp Committee is doing about all this nonsense about flagrant fouls -- specifically, defining what the hell constitutes "unnecessary and excessive contact."

It's not his job to elucidate anymore, actually. It's Stu Jackson's job as committee chair, and as it so happens, we gave NBA Veep the short shrift in Friday's story (found here) because he called too close to deadline.

"The upgrades and downgrades have received significant attention in the media," Stu said, "so we thought it would be a good idea to reconfirm and redefine what it is, and provide examples. So we gave them examples, showed them how we evaluated them, and explained why we might have changed them."

Here's what Jackson wants to get across: The rules are a lot more uniform than you think. We'll be damned why a deliberate Dwight Howard elbow to Sam Dalembert's head is a Flagrant 2 while a deliberate Kobe Bryant elbow to Ron Artest's gullet is a Flagrant 1, but he has his reasons.

We didn't want him to explain each call. We just wanted him to reiterate (for a hundredth time) why he keeps reversing the ruling on the court, like he did three times in 24 hours the other day -- which is giving fans a reason to feel the league is manipulating the game, and giving the refs reason to think they're more useful than the average houseplant?

"Remember, by rule, these types of fouls can be evaluated afterwards -- and they should be, because in real time, they're very difficult to assess," Jackson said. "Currently, our rules permit officials to evaluate Flagrant 2s (on the court, via videotape), but even after some review, there can always be a difference of evaluation. That's why we do it."

One example that came up is the Rajon Rondo hit on Brad Miller in Game 5, Bulls-Celts. Anyone with half a brain would say, "Well, no desire to reach for the ball, direct slap at the face, blood, loose teeth, and the aggrieved party was seeing stars when it was over -- we'll say it's flagrant."

More than half the people on Jackson's committee agreed with that.

Stu himself begged to differ, which is why Rondo didn't get tagged.

"In our mind, Rajon was making a basketball play," he explained. "It was fairly evident with video replay, that there was a point in that play where he was making a play to the ball. Due to the direction Miller was going in, and where the contact occurred, there was no follow-through hit -- as you see in all flagrant fouls."

Thorn: "I personally thought it was (a flagrant)."

* * *

The league is also rescinding technical fouls, which seems very convenient, if you don't want a superstar -- such as Howard or Kobe -- watching an NBA Finals game from a hotel room. They're both two T's away from a suspension and that magical seven points.

But if they hit seven, Jackson's fine with that.

"I am comfortable with the rule as it is, but with any rule we're open to discussion with regard to a better idea," he said. "We'll explore the possibility of tweaking it, but the fundamentals are very good. They're geared to help curb the player with complaining and overt reactions to officials on the floor. We would like to curb it and not incentivize players in a manner in which they're continuing to complain. In terms of seven points, are we open to discussion? Sure."

Jeff Van Gundy had a more practical idea: Since the seven-point system is going to punish the players on the good teams more than the players on the first-round casualty ("no one is going to accrue seven points in one or two rounds," he sniffed), why not just give everyone a two-T limit per round, and levy a suspension with a third?

"Does anyone want to see a Finals game without the best players?" Van Gundy said. "Is that good for the league? There are much better ways to punish an individual for poor behavior than suspension."

Jackson replied, "That's a discussion we're open to. It may not necessarily be Jeff's suggestion, but we're open to changing the metric."